#404 8/3 Monthly Meeting; Science in US Needs Plan; Coalition Pushes Back; AASF Symposium;+ July 27, 2026 Read #403 OMB Rules Gut Grants/Collaboration; Yanping Chen Motions; Election Speech Backlash; + July 23, 2026 Read #402 NSF to Ban Most Research with China; National APA Museum; More ICE Shootings; + July 16, 2026 Read #401 SCOTUS/APAs Reaffirm Birthright Citizenship; Reporter Herridge Contempt Fine Stands; + July 13, 2026 Read #400 400 Issues Later: Still Building Community, Advocacy, and Voice June 12, 2026 Read #399 A Memorable Webinar Co-Hosted by Committee of 100, U.S.-China Education Trust, and APA Justice June 10, 2026 Read #398 Maryland Speaker and Delegate at 6/1 Meeting; Leaders Comment; NYT Immigrant Squeeze;+ June 5, 2026 Read #397 Maryland Reps at 6/1 Meeting; 6/3 Webinar; ICE Sprayed Andy Kim; CBS Radio Shut Down + May 29, 2026 Read #396 Maryland Reps at 6/1 Meeting; 6/3 Joint Webinar; APAICS Update; Innes Lab; McCarthyism May 26, 2026 Read #395 Rep. Dave Min; Researching While Chinese; Attack on MD Delegate Chao Wu; McCarthyism + May 18, 2026 Read #394 Forbidden Citizens; AAJC Updates; USCET Resource Hub; Letter to Congress; Resistance+ May 13, 2026 Read #393 Monthly Meeting Today; APA Heritage Month; NSB Fired by Trump; SCOTUS Case; FISA 702+ May 4, 2026 Read < < 1 1 1 Newsletters APA Justice began publishing a free periodic newsletter about 4-7 times a month in July 2020. You can subscribe here . Visit the Virtual Library to search the entire collection. Filter by year

Newsletter - #404 8/3 Monthly Meeting; Science in US Needs Plan; Coalition Pushes Back; AASF Symposium;+ #404 8/3 Monthly Meeting; Science in US Needs Plan; Coalition Pushes Back; AASF Symposium;+ In This Issue #404 · 2026/08/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting · Science : University Science in the US Needs a Coherent Plan · A Coalition Pushes Back Against OMB Rule · AASF 2026 Frontiers and Pioneers Symposium · News and Activities for the Communities 2026/08/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting The next APA Justice monthly meeting will be held on Monday, May 4, 2026, starting at 1:55 pm ET. In addition to updates from: · Judith Teruya , Executive Director, Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC) · Joanna YangQing Derman , Program Director, Advancing Justice | AAJC · Gisela Perez Kusakawa , Executive Director, Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF) We are honored to welcome the following distinguished speakers: · Tam Dao , Associate Vice President of Public Safety and Research Security, Rice University · Kenny Evans , Fellow in Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy, Rice University · Sarah Stalker-Lehoux , Acting Chief of Research Security Strategy and Policy, National Science Foundation · Roger Innes , Distinguished Professor, Biology, Indiana University The virtual monthly meeting is by invitation only. It is closed to the press. If you wish to join, either one time or for future meetings, please contact one of the co-organizers of APA Justice - Vincent Wang 王文奎 and Jeremy Wu 胡善庆 - or send a message to contact@apajustice.org . Science : University Science in the US Needs a Coherent Plan The Science editorial , published July 23, 2026, argues that the Trump administration's ongoing actions are systematically undermining U.S. academic science, and that universities' collective silence in response is making the crisis worse. The Evidence of Harm: · Graduate student enrollment at major research universities (which award half of all U.S. doctorates) has dropped 15% year-over-year, driven by immigration policies deterring international students and funding uncertainty that makes universities hesitant to commit to new doctoral students. · National Science Foundation (NSF) recently cut basic science grants by up to 30% or more, shifting support away from academic research toward entrepreneurial tech initiatives. · Office of Management and Budget (OMB) ignored bipartisan pushback and refused to extend the comment period on its proposal to shift grant-approval power from peer review boards to political appointees — the same rule covered in APA Justice's prior newsletter coverage . · High-profile scientists are leaving: Nobel laureate chemist Omar Yaghi departed UC Berkeley for Tsinghua University in China to lead a new AI-driven materials science institute, and chemist David Nicewicz left UNC Chapel Hill for Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, citing a desire to be in a "country that truly cares about the development and welfare of its citizens." The Core Critique: The editorial's central argument is not just about administration policy — it is about institutional failure. Only a handful of organizations (AAAS and the Association of American Medical Colleges) issued immediate, firm condemnations of the OMB rule. Most universities that objected did so quietly, at the last minute, with minimal follow-through beyond their formal comments — Yale and Duke are cited as rare exceptions. The author attributes this caution to fear of retaliation from the administration. The most concrete, actionable resistance is coming not from universities but from activist organizations like Stand Up for Science. Meanwhile, university leadership is described as more focused on competing with each other for visibility than coordinating a unified response. The Ask: The editorial calls for a "coherent plan" — a clear, practical strategy from academic leadership on how U.S. science can survive and adapt to the current political climate. If university leaders disagree with the more confrontational approach of groups like Stand Up for Science, the piece argues they owe the scientific community a clearly articulated alternative — rather than leaving faculty, students, and prospective students to navigate a "messy patchwork of guidance" without direction. A Coalition Pushes Back Against OMB Rule As the White House's sweeping OMB grantmaking rule moves toward finalization, a coalition of activist organizations, faculty unions, and scientific societies has emerged as the clearest, most organized source of opposition — filling a vacuum left by largely quiet university leadership, as covered in a separate article in this issue. Stand Up for Science: Leading the Fight Founded in 2025 amid the administration's disruption of federal science funding, Stand Up for Science (SUFS) has become one of the most active organizations tracking and opposing the OMB rule specifically. Founder and CEO Colette Delawalla described the group's work as "a frankly enormous campaign educating the public and scientists" on what the rule actually contains. SUFS published a detailed " Impact Report " on the proposal and a plain-language explainer flagging specific legal vulnerabilities — including its finding that the rule's "domestic first framework" restricting foreign collaboration appears to conflict with CHIPS and Science Act carve-outs that expressly permit certain international research exchanges, and that OMB devoted unusually extensive legal justification to its DEI restrictions and expanded grant-termination authority, a sign the agency may be bracing for litigation. This CHIPS Act tension echoes the concerns Stanford physicist Peter Michelson raised regarding NSF's SECURE program, covered in our OMB rule article elsewhere in this issue. SUFS also built public tools making it easier to file substantive, individualized comments rather than form letters, and partnered with the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) on public action events, including a June 18 educational webinar and a July 13 "OMB Deadline Day Rally" billed as "the fight is just beginning." For more information, visit the Stand Up for Science website. The Scientific Societies Mobilize According to an analysis by Tech Policy Press , roughly 70 scientific and professional societies filed formal comments opposing the rule, an outsized share by influence, since organizational comments tend to carry more technical and legal weight than individual submissions. Among the most prominent: · AAAS , publisher of Science , submitted a comment identifying three core harms: OMB overreach, political control over grantmaking and terminations, and expanded restrictions on international cooperation — arguing the rule would "overemphasize political objectives in scientific priority setting" while "deemphasiz[ing] scientific opportunity, merit-based expert peer review, and the needs of American patients, industries, and workers." · The American Physical Society called the rule an "unequivocal threat" to the peer-review system underlying U.S. scientific leadership. · The American Astronomical Society , representing roughly 9,000 members, warned the rule would "cause significant harm to the scientific community, research institutions, and professional societies," specifically flagging new restrictions on covering conference attendance and publishing costs. · The American Association for Cancer Research mobilized its 66,000 members, warning the rule would "undermine scientific independence, restrict collaborations, disrupt the dissemination of research, and seriously threaten progress against cancer." · The American Society for Microbiology flagged that the rule's prohibition on using federal funds for publication costs would force researchers to divert limited funding away from training and mentoring early-career scientists. · The American Geophysical Union , whose board member Tanya Furman warned that restricting scientists' ability to share results "damages our nation and leaves us unable to compete," joined the American Mathematical Society in filing detailed technical objections. · The Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) , representing the federal statistics and data research community, filed a comment calling for the rule to be "withdrawn in their entirety," warning that "by introducing political oversight, sudden funding instability, and broad self-censorship requirements into the grant-making process, this rule directly threatens the integrity, continuity, and accessibility of vital research" — arguing that accurate, objective, and timely federal data is "the bedrock of public policy, economic forecasting, and scientific progress." · The American Council on Education (ACE) led a coalition of over 60 higher education associations in a joint formal response calling on OMB to withdraw the proposal entirely. · Even the New England Journal of Medicine weighed in: Editor-in-Chief Eric Rubin , a Harvard professor, said the rule "would certainly be bad for Boston," reflecting concern from a region where research institutions employ thousands of federally funded workers. · FASEB , a federation of scientific societies, has announced a "Phase 2" of advocacy focused on direct congressional engagement now that the comment period has closed. An analysis by STAT of the submitted comments found that science advocacy groups and scientific journals led the initial wave of opposition, with higher education coalitions, professional societies, and individual researchers following — and even some industry groups, typically cautious about criticizing the administration, submitting comments as well. Bipartisan Congressional Pushback This advocacy coalition found some traction on Capitol Hill. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the rule's mid-award termination provisions and new payment-justification requirements, warning they would disproportionately burden small and rural communities alongside scientific and biomedical research. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) submitted a letter of opposition with 125 co-signers. House Democrats Frank Pallone , Diana DeGette , and Yvette Clarke separately called the rule an "obvious power grab" that "threatens to inflict severe harm on the nation's biomedical research enterprise by usurping the critical role of scientific experts in the approval and funding of grants." What's Next With the comment period closed and OMB expected to review nearly 497,000 submissions before finalizing the rule by its October 1 target date, this coalition's next moves — particularly FASEB's promised congressional engagement push and any legal challenges organizations may be preparing — will likely determine whether the record public opposition translates into meaningful changes to the rule. AASF 2026 Frontiers and Pioneers Symposium WHAT: 2026 Frontiers and Pioneers Symposium WHEN : August 7-9, 2026 WHERE : Stanford University HOSTS : Asian American Scholar Forum, Asian American Research Center at Stanford DESCRIPTION : A 3-day gathering hosted by the Asian American Scholar Forum (AASF), in partnership with Stanford University's Asian American Research Center, bringing together scholars, researchers, students, and thought leaders to explore the contributions of Asian Americans in STEM and academia — and the challenges they face. The event includes panels, sessions, and a formal medal ceremony honoring Asian American pioneers in fields like energy, AI, life sciences, and leadership. REGISTRATION: https://www.aafuturefoundation.org/ News and Activities for the Communities 1. APA Justice Community Calendar Upcoming Events: 2026/08/03 APA Justice Monthly Meeting 2026/08/05 C100: The Impact of AI on Asian American Careers in Technology 2026/08/07-09 AASF: Asian American Pioneer Medal Symposium and Ceremony 2026/08/26 C100: An Advice and Networking Event (Technology)Visit https://bit.ly/3XD61qV for event details. # # # APA Justice Task Force is a non-partisan platform to build a sustainable ecosystem that addresses racial profiling concerns and to facilitate, inform, and advocate on selected issues related to justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American community. For more information, please refer to the APA Justice website at www.apajusticetaskforce.org . We value your feedback. Please send your comments to contact@apajustice.org . Back View PDF July 27, 2026 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

April 2026 Meeting Summary Apr 6, 2026 Read March 2026 Meeting Summary Mar 2, 2026 Read February 2026 Meeting Summary Feb 2, 2026 Read January 2026 Meeting Summary Jan 5, 2026 Read December 2025 Meeting Summaires Dec 1, 2025 Read November 2025 Meeting Summary Nov 3, 2025 Read October 2025 Meeting Summary Oct 6, 2025 Read September 2025 Meeting Summary Sep 8, 2025 Read August 2025 Monthly Meeting Summary Aug 4, 2025 Read July 2025 Meeting Summary Jul 7, 2025 Read June 2025 Meeting Summary Jun 2, 2025 Read May 2025 Meeting Summary May 5, 2025 Read Monthly Meeting Summaries APA Justice conducts monthly meetings and publishes the meeting summary on this website. Participation is by invitation only. Due to limited capacity, invited participants are typically active and recognized organizations and concerned individuals. Please send an email to contact@apajustice.org if you have interest. < < 1 1 1

Issues Alien Land Bills This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Read More COVID-19 This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Read More The China Initiative This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Read More Warrantless Surveillance This item is connected to a text field in your content manager. Double click the dataset icon to add your own content. Read More

Latest Posts Court Hearing and A New Movement Emerges July 24, 2023 We published a Special Edition of our newsletter to cover the July 18 court hearing on Florida's new discriminatory housing law. Read More Lawsuit Against Florida Senate Bill 264 May 22, 2023 A group of Chinese citizens who live, work, study, and raise families in Florida filed a lawsuit to combat Florida’s discriminatory property law, SB 264. Read More Texas House Bill 1075 and Senate Bill 552 January 23, 2023 Texas state representatives are attempting to stop foreign governments from purchasing Texas agricultural land. Read More Rep. Judy Chu's New Year Greetings and 2022 Review January 9, 2023 During the first APA Justice monthly meeting of 2023, Rep. Judy Chu, Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, reviewed the accomplishments of 2022, highlighted by the end of the "China Initiative" and Sherry Chen's historic settlement. Read More Campaign to Oppose The Nomination of Casey Arrowood July 29, 2022 Academics, elected officials, and civil rights groups across the country are raising concerns about the nomination of Casey Arrowood to be US Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee. Read More APA Justice Calls for Release of Report on Review of "China Initiative" March 8, 2022 On March 8, 2022, APA Justice sent a letter to Assistant Attorney General Matthew G. Olsen, calling for the release of a report on the Department of Justice's review of the “China Initiative.” Read More Texas man accused of attacking Asian family over racist coronavirus fears pleads guilty to hate-crime charges February 24, 2022 Nearly two years later, a 21-year-old Texas man who attempted to kill an Asian man and his young child has pleaded guilty to federal hate-crime charges. Read More 12. China Initiative Ends February 23, 2022 Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen announced the end of the China Initiative. The 1,210 days of the Initiative were extremely damaging to individuals and their families, as well as the Asian American and scientific communities. The end of the China Initiative is a welcomed start to correct the harms it caused. APA Justice is committed to continue its work to address racial profiling and seek justice and fairness for the Asian Pacific American communities. Read More 11. MIT Technology Review Investigative Reports December 2, 2021 On December 2, 2021, MIT Technology Review published two investigative reports on the China Initiative as newly appointed Assistant Attorney General Matt Olsen was conducting a review of the initiative. Read More < < 1 2 3 4 5 What's the best flavor? Activists Including APA Justice Resist New "Red Scare" Chinese Americans are increasingly finding themselves targeted by the US in what has become the new "Red Scare."

Impacted Persons List Anming Hu 胡安明 Read more Baimadajie Angwang 昂旺 Read more Charles Lieber Read more Chen Song 宋琛 Read more Davis Lu Read more Franklin Tao 陶丰 Read more Gang Chen 陈刚 Read more Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 Read more Haizhou Hu Read more James Patrick Lewis Read more Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 Read more Juan Tang 唐娟 Read more Kaikai Zhao 赵凯凯 Read more Kevin Wang Read more Lei Guan 关磊 Read more Lin Yang Read more Meyya Meyyappan Read more Mingqing Xiao Read more Qing Wang 王擎 Read more Simon Saw-Teong Ang 洪思忠 Read more Song Guo Zheng Read more Turab Lookman 特拉伯·鲁克曼 Read more Van Andel Research Read more Wuyuan Lu 陆五元 Read more Xiao-jiang Li 李晓江 Read more Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 Read more Xiaoming Zhang Read more Xiaoxing Xi 郗小星 Read more Xifeng Wu 吴息凤 Read more Xin Wang 王欣 Read more Yanping Chen 陈燕平 Read more Yanqing Ye Read more Yu Zhou, Li Chen Read more Zaosong Zheng Read more Zhendong Cheng Read more Filter by Category China Initiative NIH Other Sort by Alphabetical by first name Alphabetical by last name

Read More 1. A Call to Stop Senate Bill 147 and All Alien Land Laws Friday, February 17, 2023 12:00 AM Read More 1. Bridging Nations: People-to-people Exchange in U.S.-China Relations Thursday, October 16, 2025 12:00 AM Read More 1. From Past Prejudice to Present Policy: The Impact of Land Ownership Exclusion Laws on Diverse Communities Wednesday, December 11, 2024 12:00 AM Read More 1. The Human and Scientific Costs of The "China Initiative" Wednesday, September 30, 2020 12:00 AM Read More 2. Bridging Nations: Global Competition for Talent & International Students Thursday, February 26, 2026 12:00 AM Read More 2. Fair Housing Rights & Alien Land Laws: Challenges and Advocacy for the Asian American Community Tuesday, March 4, 2025 12:00 AM Read More 2. Historical Re-Hash - Alien Land Law and SB147 Wednesday, March 1, 2023 12:00 AM Read More 2. Policy Needs for U.S. Science and Scientists Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:00 AM Read More 3. Building Coalition Against “China Initiative” Discrimination - Fighting racial targeting of Asian Americans and communities of color, past & present Wednesday, February 24, 2021 12:00 AM Read More 3. Geopolitics, Identity, and the Fight for Civil Rights Wednesday, June 3, 2026 12:00 AM Read More 4. Legal Resources and Policy Advocacy - How to Combat Racial Profiling Under the “China Initiative” Wednesday, April 28, 2021 12:00 AM Read More 5. The Mistrial of Professor Anming Hu under the "China Initiative" Wednesday, June 23, 2021 12:00 AM

Attempts to Revive China Initiative Return to The China Initiative or Racial Profiling Table of Contents 2022/03/17 Community Town Hall: The End of The "China Initiative" 2025/01/30 Senator Jim Risch: Every Chinese Student is An Agent of the CCP 2025/02/21 Reintroduction of Bills to Reinstate China Initiative 2025/03/12 Webinar: The China Initiative: Policy, Practice, and the Asian American Critique 2025/03/21 Webinar: Fighting Racial Profiling and The Criminalization of Academia in North America 2025/04/08 Visa Terminations, Trump Reversal, and New ICE Policy Continuing Developments 2022/03/17 Community Town Hall: The End of The "China Initiative" Although it was announced by the Department of Justice that the China Initiative ended on February 23, 2022, there have been continuing attempts to revive it. On March 17, 2022, a Community Town Hall was held to discuss the end of the China Initiative. The open forum was not recorded. APA Justice issued a statement that said in part: “Ending the “China Initiative” is a promising start to correct the harms caused by the initiative, apply lessons learned, and rebuild community trust and confidence that were lost in our law enforcement and judicial system. “But we emphasize that this is just a start. “We, like many other organizations and individuals, have broad concerns that the end of the initiative is just in name but does not reflect a change in fact and substance.” Return to Table of Contents 2025/01/30 Senator Jim Risch: Every Chinese Student is An Agent of the CCP During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on January 30, 2025, Committee Chair Senator Jim Risch made statement that “each [Chinese student], whether they like it or not, is an agent of the Chinese Communist Party.” References and Links 2025/01/31 Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Chairman Risch Questions Witnesses at Hearing on the Malign Influence of China Return to Table of Contents 2025/02/21 Reintroduction of Bills to Reinstate China Initiative On February 21, 2025, Senator Rick Scott announced the reintroduction of his Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act to reinstate and codify President Trump’s CCP Initiative under the Department of Justice (DOJ). On the same day, Rep. Lance Gooden reintroduced a companion bill in the House. References and Links 2025/02/21 Senator Rick Scott: Sen. Rick Scott Announces Bill to Reinstate President Trump’s CCP Initiative 2025/02/21 Rep. Lance Gooden: Congressman Lance Gooden Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Combat CCP Espionage and Protect U.S. Innovation 2023/03/07 Congress.gov : H.R.1398 - Protect America’s Innovation and Economic Security from CCP Act of 2024 (118th Congress) Return to Table of Contents 2025/03/12 Webinar: The China Initiative: Policy, Practice, and the Asian American Critique On March 12, 2025, Michigan State University's Asian Pacific American Studies Program hosted a webinar on the China Initiative, a Trump administration program that targeted Asian American scholars and researchers for investigation and prosecution. The event was moderated by Dr. Kent Weaver of Michigan State University. Professor Lok Siu of UC Berkeley and Dr. Jeremy Wu of APA Justice were featured speakers. A Q&A session followed after their presentation. References and Links 2025/03/12 Lok Siu (UC Berkeley): The Racial Profiling of AAPIs: Stereotyping Threat 2025/03/12 Jeremy Wu (APA Justice): China Initiative: Past and Present 中国行动的前世今生 Return to Table of Contents 2025/03/21 Webinar: Fighting Racial Profiling and The Criminalization of Academia in North America On March 21, 2025, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project at Simon Fraser University, Canada, invited Dr. Anming Hu for an event named Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America both in-person and online. This event was one of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project’s ongoing series of Academic Freedom, Anti-racial profiling and Labour Rights. The series is sponsored by the Labour Studies Program and the Simon Fraser University Morgan Centre for Labour Research, Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) and Canada-China Focus (CCF). The purpose of the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project is to engage and support researchers, scholars, as well as graduate students of Chinese descent and other minority groups to fight against racial profiling and defend academic freedom in the increasingly restrictive national security measures adopted by the Canadian government through its Named Research Organizations in Sensitive Technology Research Areas, and legalized control of academic freedom under the newly passed Bill C-70, the Countering Foreign Interference Act. Through organizing open conversations, the Chinese Canadian Faculty Project hopes to foster an inclusive and open academic environment. On the event, Dr. Hu shared his powerful story as the first academic wrongfully charged and went on trial under the China Initiative. He spoke about what he experienced, the impacts on his academic career, his life and his family. He speaks out against racial profiling, raising awareness of the dangers of overreach in national security measures targeting academia. Immediate impact of the event : As a Chinese Canadian, Dr. Anming Hu’s story was known to the Chinese Canadian academic community. The event attracted attention nationwide in Canada. Scholars in sensitive technology areas have wide fear of racial profiling and being wrongfully treated by their own government. Therefore, university professors, scholars and students participated widely. There were more than seventy attendees across North America. The participants addressed their concerns during the panel discussion. They consulted Dr. Hu with legal concerns, and what they should do to protect themselves. Dr. Hu responded with his own experience. Political impact : Beyond attracting academia attention, the event has also drawn interest from politicians. Senator Yuen Pau Woo participated in-person. He was concerned about whether the Canadian government provided adequate support to Dr. Hu when he encountered injustice. He asked whether the Canadian government took any action to help Dr. Hu during his investigation and trial. Did any Canadian diplomats, government agencies or parliamentarians stand up to support him. In addition, he also asked if a Canadian citizen encountered similar legal problems in China, would the Canadian government provide similar advice and support. Dr. Hu responded how the Canadian government instructed him to “follow US law” and provided no help. In comparison, Dr. Hu addressed how US congresswomen and congressmen provided assistance in his case. He hopes that the Canadian government will be more proactive in protecting its citizens in the future, especially when handling similar legal issues, and can act more forcefully and effectively. Social impact : A local Vancouver social activist Ally Wang participated the event in-person. The Stop Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Advocacy Group, which she co-founded, helped promote the event. She writes articles for Chinese language media. She has translated Dr. Anming Hu’s story into Chinese and will publish on a Chinese language magazine. In conclusion, the event raised attention to racial profiling against Chinese professors in the academy in both Canada and America. It called wide attention to academic independence and impartiality, firmly oppose political interference, and encourage everyone to actively participate in discussions among universities, policymakers and the public to jointly promote the construction of an inclusive and fair higher education environment. WHAT : Fighting Racial Profiling and the Criminalization of Academia in North America WHEN : March 21, 2025, 4:00 pm-6:30 pm PT/7:00 pm-9:30 pm ET WHERE : Hybrid event In Person: Room 7000, SFU Vancouver Harbor Centre Campus, 515 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC V6B 5K3 Canada Webinar via Zoom HOST : Simon Fraser University, Labor Studies Program Moderator : Dr. Xinying Hu , Simon Fraser University Speaker : Dr. Anming Hu , University of Tennessee, Knoxville Discussants: Dr. Jane Wang , University of British Columbia Dr. Jie Yang , Simon Fraser University Return to Table of Contents The Case of Professor Xiaofeng Wang 王晓峰 Professor Xiaofeng Wang Xiaofeng Wang, a prominent cybersecurity professor at Indiana University Bloomington (IUB), was terminated on March 28, 2025—the same day FBI and Department of Homeland Security agents conducted searches at his homes in Bloomington and Carmel, Indiana. The university has not publicly disclosed the reasons for his dismissal. Professor Wang's wife, Nianli Ma—a systems analyst at the university—was also terminated on March 24, 2025. References and Links APA Justice Impacted Person: Xiaofeng Wang Return to Table of Contents 2025/04/08 Visa Terminations, Trump Reversal, and New ICE Policy Inside Higher Ed Tracker as of 2025/04/25 On January 29, 2025, President Donald Trump issued Executive Order 14188, which authorized the revocation of international student visas, targeting students involved in anti-Israel protests or those alleged to have violated laws during such demonstrations, particularly following the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. Revocation of student visas began to spread beyond the executive order as part of Trump's crackdown on immigration in early April 2025. On April 8, 2025, Inside Higher Ed began to track the revocation of F-1 or J-1 student status. As of April 25, 2025, over 280 colleges and universities have identified more than 1,800 international students and recent graduates who have had their legal status changed by the State Department. More than 100 lawsuits and dozens of restraining orders from federal judges challenged the Trump administration’s mass termination of student visa records. After 20 days of consistent legal defeats, the administration capitulated and reversed its decision on April 25, 2025. Notable lawsuits include Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) , filed April 11 in the Northern District of California by the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance (华美维权同盟 CALDA) Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998) , filed April 11 in the Northern District of Georgia by CAIR-Georgia, Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Atlanta, and American Civil Liberties Union-Georgia. On April 29, Politico reported that the visa revocations were part of the "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," which involved running 1.3 million student names through a federal criminal database run by the FBI's National Crime Information Center (NCIC). Approximately 6,400 matches were found, many of which were minor infractions or dismissed charges. Despite this, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used the data to terminate student records in the SEVIS tracking system. In parallel, the State Department revoked visas for roughly 3,000 individuals based on similar data, separate from the SEVIS terminations. Hundreds of the terminations, an ICE official who helped oversee the effort said, came less than 24 hours after an April 1 email exchange between his office and the State Department, with little sign of review of individual cases to ensure the decisions were accurate. The lack of due process became especially clear during an April 29 hearing on the case of Patel v. Lyons (1:25-cv-01096) before U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, where ICE officials admitted that hundreds of terminations were made within 24 hours of receiving raw data—with little or no individual case review. “When the courts say due process is important, we’re not unhinged, we’re not radicals,” Judge Reyes said during an hourlong hearing. “I’m not on a lark questioning why students who have been here legally, who paid to be in this country by paying their universities … they’re cut off with less than 24 hours of consideration and no notice whatsoever." Akshar Patel brought the suit that led to the April 29 hearing. He is an international student from India who pursued undergraduate studies in computer science at the University of Texas at Arlington. He graduated prior to 2025 and has since been working in the computer science field in North Texas. HIs legal status in the U.S. was abruptly terminated after his name appeared in the ICE sweep of the NCIC database. He had faced a reckless driving charge in 2018 but it was ultimately dismissed. When colleges discovered the students no longer had legal status, it prompted chaos and confusion. In the past, legal statuses typically were updated after colleges told the government the students were no longer studying at the school. In some cases this spring, colleges told students to stop working or taking classes immediately and warned them they could be deported after the ICE sweep. According to AP News , NBC News , and multiple media reports on April 29, an internal memo to all Student and Exchange Visitor Program personnel, which falls under ICE, shows an expanded list of criteria for ICE to terminate foreign-born students’ legal status in the U.S., including a “U.S. Department of State Visa Revocation (Effective Immediately).” It was filed in court by the Justice Department on April 28 and dated April 26. Brad Banias , an immigration attorney who represents Patel, said the new guidelines vastly expand ICE’s authority beyond previous policy, which did not count visa revocation as grounds for losing legal status. In the past, if a student had their visa revoked, they could stay in the U.S. to finish their studies — they simply would not be able to reenter if they left the country. “This just gave them carte blanche to have the State Department revoke a visa and then deport those students even if they’ve done nothing wrong,” Banias said. On April 11, 2025, the Chinese American Legal Defense Alliance 华美维权同盟 (CALDA) filed a lawsuit Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) on behalf of four Chinese students enrolled at UC Berkeley, Carnegie Mellon, University of Cincinnati, and Columbia. References and Links Inside Higher Ed: International Student Visas Revoked CourtListener: Patel v. Lyons (1:25-cv-01096) CourtListener: Chen v. Noem (3:25-cv-03292) CourtListener: Jane Doe 1 v. Bondi (1:25-cv-01998) 2025/04/29 AP News: The US government has a new policy for terminating international students’ legal status 2025/04/29 NBC News: Visa revocations can now lead to legal status terminations, according to internal memo 2025/04/29 Politico: Feds reveal how immigration squad targeted thousands of foreign students 2025/04/25 Politico: Trump administration reverses abrupt terminations of foreign students’ US visa registrations 2025/04/22 AsAmNews: Indian and Chinese nationals top list of student visa revocations 2025/04/17 AILA: Policy Brief: The Scope of Immigration Enforcement Actions Against International Students 2025/01/29 Executive Order 14188—Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism Return to Table of Contents Continuing Developments Reference and Links 2025/04/16 US-China Perception Monitor: Fears of a China Initiative Revival Stir Anxiety Among Chinese American Academics Return to Table of Contents

Gee-Kung Chang 張繼昆 Docket ID: 1:21-cr-00109 District Court, N.D. Georgia Date filed: Mar 18, 2021 Date Ended: Apr 14, 2025 Robert Fisher , Partner at Nixon Peabody, was the defense attorney for MIT Professor Gang Chen 陈刚 . He spoke at the APA Justice monthly meeting on May 5, 2025, and introduced Professor Gee-Kung (GK) Chang 張繼昆 , whom Robert also represented with colleague Brian Kelly . Rob said this is a critical time for the country and for the Asian American community. Although the China Initiative was officially ended, similar prosecutions are still occurring—particularly targeting professors, scientists, and professionals with ties to China. Rob explained that GK was accused of wire fraud based on allegations that he and a colleague from ZTE conspired to misuse J-1 visa students, supposedly having them work at ZTE while being paid by Georgia Tech. However, the defense pointed out that, even according to the government’s own account, the students were working at Georgia Tech. The indictment was fundamentally flawed—it failed to allege that the financial component was the actual object of the fraud. As a result, the court dismissed most of the charges, leaving only one remaining. That final charge—visa fraud—was also challenged. GK had no role in the visa application process, and Georgia Tech had never provided training on compliance or rules regarding foreign collaboration. Without knowledge or training, there could not have been intent to defraud. Eventually, the government dropped the last remaining charge. GK was fully exonerated after a four-year ordeal under the era of the China Initiative. GK's case highlights a broader issue: many professors were once encouraged to collaborate with China, only to later face prosecution as political attitudes shifted. These retroactive investigations have damaged careers and chilled academic collaboration, especially within the Asian American community. Professor GK Chang shared his personal account of a harrowing legal ordeal during the May 2025 APA Justice monthly meeting. Quoting his written statement titled "From Injustice to Integrity: A Journey Through Fire," GK told his story that "I stand before you today, not as a victim of injustice, but as a witness to the power of integrity, forged in the fiercest fires of adversity. My journey was never just about reclaiming my freedom — it was about turning pain into a higher purpose, one that lights the way for those still suffering injustice." GK was born in China in 1947, moved to Taiwan as a baby during the Chinese Civil War, and came to the U.S. in 1970 for graduate studies in physics. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Riverside in 1976 and became a U.S. citizen in 1981. With 23 years of experience in industry—including leadership roles at Bell Labs, Bellcore, Telcordia, and OpNext—GK became a pioneer in optoelectronic integration and fiber-optic communications, holding over 50 patents. He received multiple awards, including the R&D 100 Award and the Bellcore President’s Award. In 2002, he joined Georgia Tech as an Eminent Scholar Chair Professor. There, he led major NSF-sponsored research on fiber-wireless networks that laid the foundation for 5G and 6G technologies. He advised 30 Ph.D. students, published over 500 papers, and earned Fellow honors from IEEE and the Optical Society of America. He was recognized as a distinguished alumnus of National Tsing Hua University and received Georgia Tech’s Distinguished Faculty Achievement Award. On March 24, 2021, GK’s life was changed forever when nine federal agents arrested him at home without warning, accusing him of conspiracy and wire fraud under the now-defunct “China Initiative.” Despite his clean record and decades of academic and industry contributions, he was publicly indicted without prior notice. Though released on a low bail, the arrest devastated his personal and professional life. The media portrayed him as guilty, his reputation collapsed, and colleagues and friends distanced themselves, leaving him isolated and emotionally shattered. Despite being wrongfully indicted, GK stood firm, relying on his values, family, and a few loyal allies. Through careful review of over a million pages of documents with his legal team of Rob Fisher and Brian Kelly, he uncovered major flaws in the case against him: factual inaccuracies, missing evidence, and prosecutorial misconduct. The charges lacked legal grounding and were based partly on the testimony of a disgruntled former student. The government misunderstood academic norms and pursued the case without proof of intent, fraud, or personal gain—revealing a deeply flawed and unjust prosecution. Faced with multiple plea offers, including one to plead guilty to a single misdemeanor, GK refused to admit guilt for a crime he did not commit. He chose to fight on despite financial strain. A pivotal moment came in August 2023, when a prosecutor admitted in court that GK had not gained any money from the alleged offenses—contradicting the indictment’s claims. This crucial fact had been withheld from the grand jury, exposing serious prosecutorial misconduct and strengthening his case for vindication. The case shifted dramatically after the court dismissed 9 of the 10 charges on March 1, 2024. Empowered by this decision, GK demanded a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment, confident of full vindication. However, the emotional strain took a serious toll: he suffered a heart attack in May 2024 and underwent emergency surgery. As he recovered, his focus turned not just to clearing his name, but reclaiming his dignity. The ordeal was nearing its end, but had already come at a profound personal cost. The final charge was dismissed on April 14, 2025, through a motion filed by the prosecutor and approved by the judge, fully exonerating GK without a trial. Yet, the long-awaited freedom brought no joy. After four years of legal battles, he was left emotionally scarred, physically worn, and financially depleted. Professionally, the damage was irreversible—four crucial years of innovation and contribution at the peak of his career were lost forever. Despite the pain, the ordeal brought GK clarity and a renewed sense of purpose. He emerged not only as a survivor but as a seeker—of truth, justice, and understanding. His faith in the justice system was shaken, as he came to see its vulnerability to error, bias, and ambition. He now believes that justice does not automatically protect the innocent and must be actively pursued with courage and conviction. Upholding what is right requires strength, even in the face of overwhelming adversity—because justice is never guaranteed, only earned. Quoting Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. , GK concluded his statement by stating: "I share my testimony, 'A Journey Through Fire,' not for sympathy, but as a warning—and as a beacon. "To those suffering similar injustice: "You are not alone. "And by standing together, "we can help ensure that no one else must endure this tribulation again." References and Links 2025/05/05 APA Justice Monthly Meeting: GK Chang and Robert Fisher (video 19:00 2025/05/05 Gee-Kung Chang: 20250505 GK Chang, A Journey Through Fire, revised July 19, 2025 .pdf Download PDF • 218KB 2025/04/15 Law360: Judge Ends 'China Initiative' Prosecution Of Ex-Ga. Tech Prof 2021/03/24 DOJ: Georgia Institute of Technology professor charged with Visa and wire fraud Previous Item Next Item

Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 Case number: 2025L007963 Cook County Circuit Court Estate of Dr. Jane Wu v Northwestern University Date Filed: June 23, 2025 On August 31, 2024, South China Morning Post published an exclusive report on the tragic passing of Dr. Jane Ying Wu 吴瑛 , a prominent Chinese American researcher in neurology and genetics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine. Dr. Wu took her own life on July 10, 2024, after her lab was shut down and all records of her work were erased by Northwestern University. Her death has drawn attention to the negative impact of the "China Initiative" and "foreign interference" investigations by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which targeted scientists of Chinese descent. Over 250 scientists, most of them of Asian origin, have been scrutinized by the NIH alone, leading to job losses and severe personal and professional damages, and now an apparent loss of life. According to the report, there were only two indictments and three convictions as legal outcomes of the NIH's "China Initiative" investigations, yet at least 112 scientists lost their jobs as a result. The NIH Office of Extramural Research, headed by Dr. Michael Lauer , declined to say whether Dr. Wu was a target but a source informed about the matter said there were investigations of Dr. Wu. Dr. Wu was remembered by her peers as a warm, caring, and inspiring role model. Dr. Wu's contributions to neurodegenerative disease research and her involvement in training the next generation of scientists in the U.S. and China were widely recognized. She significantly influenced the careers of many scientists, including Dr. Bing Ren , who credits her with guiding him into molecular biology. “Dr Wu taught me basic molecular biology skills, and showed me how discoveries were made at the bench,” said Dr. Ren, who first met Dr. Wu in 1993 and worked under her direct supervision at Harvard University. “Dr Wu was the one that opened my eyes to the wonderful world of molecular biology, and convinced me to pursue a career in this field,” said the professor in cellular and molecular medicine at the University of California, San Diego. “The investigations killed her career,” said Dr. Xiao-Fan Wang , a distinguished professor in cancer research at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. “She was such a devoted scientist. Denying her the right to do research was like taking away the most important thing in her life,” Dr. Wang said. Dr. Wang is a former president of the Society of Chinese Bioscientists in America (SCBA) said the research community had been devastated by Wu’s death. “It’s hard to believe such a familiar and upbeat colleague has left us,” he said. In March 2019, SCBA, the Chinese American Hematologist and Oncologist Network, and the Chinese Biological Investigators Society write an open letter to Science , titled " Racial Profiling Harms Science ." "[We] hope that ... increased security measures will not be used to tarnish law-abiding scientists ...," the letter said. Molecular geneticist Adrian Krainer from the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York said, “I remember her as a kind and caring person. She was very devoted to training the next generation of scientists in both the US and China.” Born in Hefei, Anhui province in 1963, Dr. Wu graduated from Shanghai Medical University in 1986 and went on to earn her doctorate in cancer biology from Stanford University in the US. She did postdoctoral research at Harvard University and spent a decade at Washington University in St Louis as an assistant and then associate professor in pediatrics, molecular biology and pharmacology before joining Northwestern University in 2005. Northwestern University has not responded to multiple inquiries from the South China Morning Post since July 2024. Dr. Wu’s profile page on the medical school has disappeared. Other web pages, such as her publication and grant records on the Northwestern Scholar website, have also been deleted. “The university’s reaction is rather unusual,” said a Chinese American biologist based in Ohio, who did not wish to be named. “Normally, the school or the university would publish an obituary and keep the faculty’s webpage for a period of time.” Dr. Wu was buried in Chicago on July 17, 2024. She was 60 years old. Dr. Jane Wu's Estate Sues Northwestern University In June 2025, Dr. Wu's family, acting through her estate, filed a civil lawsuit in Cook County Circuit Court alleging that the Northwestern University discriminated against her and contributed to her suicide. She was a tenured professor at Northwestern's Feinberg School of Medicine. Following the NIH’s investigation and Northwestern University’s subsequent efforts to block her work, Dr. Wu suffered from a loss of vision as a result of a stroke she had under the stress of the investigation. She also experienced depression, but she was still able to work. In May 2024, Northwestern University handcuffed and removed Dr. Wu from her office, using her emotional disability as a “pretext” to evict her. The school then partially shut down her laboratory, dismantled her research team, reassigned her grants to white male colleagues, and committed her involuntarily to psychiatric care—actions taken without family consultation. Tragically, Dr. Wu passed away by suicide on July 10, 2024, two weeks after her release from the hospital. Following the one-year anniversary of her mother’s passing, Dr. Wu’s daughter, Elizabeth Rao 饶婕, opened up for the first time in an exclusive interview on the devastating impact of her mother’s treatment on their family and her own life. The lawsuit was filed with the Circuit Court of Cook County in Illinois on June 24, 2025. Case number is 2025L007963. It claims institutional discrimination based on her national origin, sex, and disability, citing violations of the Illinois Human Rights Act and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The case was assigned to Judge Jonathan Clark Green. A court hearing was held on December 1, 2025, starting at 9 am CT. Location is Court Room 1906, Richard J Daley Center, 50 W Washington St, Chicago, IL 60602. Northwestern University filed a motion to dismiss the case. The Cook County Circuit Court held a hearing on February 24, 2026. Judge Green rejected the university’s request for dismissal, allowing the case to move ahead. The next hearing is set for mid-May, 2026. References and Links Circuit Court of Cook County: Online Civil, Law, Chancery, Domestic Case Search (Law - Personal Injury and Contract Cases over $30K, malpractice, attorney codes) 2026/02/25 South China Morning Post: Suicide lawsuit against China-born scientist Jane Wu’s US university to proceed 2025/12/03 South China Morning Post: US university seeks to dismiss lawsuit by family of China-born scientist Jane Wu 2025/07/12 NBC News: After Northwestern scientist questioned for China ties died by suicide, family sues and speaks out 2025/07/01 South China Morning Post: Family of China-born neuroscientist Jane Wu files death-related civil complaint in US 2025/06/26 Daily Northwestern: Estate of Feinberg professor sues University for discrimination, role in suicide 2019/03/22 Science: Racial profiling harms science Previous Item Next Item

Newsletter - #113 2/7 Meeting Summary; Gang Chen Talks; Take Action; IHRN Statement; ODNI Accountability #113 2/7 Meeting Summary; Gang Chen Talks; Take Action; IHRN Statement; ODNI Accountability Back View PDF February 14, 2022 Previous Newsletter Next Newsletter

On June 17, 2021, APA Justice sent a letter urging the Biden-Harris Administration to respond to the standing FOIA requests and publicize the justification for the continuation of the "China Initiative." June 17, 2021 On June 17, 2021, APA Justice sent a letter to Erika Moritsugu, Deputy Assistant to the President and Asian American and Pacific Islander Senior Liaison at the White House, urging the Biden-Harris Administration to respond to the standing Congressional and Freedom of Information (FOIA) requests and provide full data and information publicly to justify the continuation of the "China Initiative" and related racial profiling policies and practices. In summary, without further delay, we respectfully request the Biden-Harris administration to: Release the data and information requested by Reps. Jamie Raskin and Judy Chu and Senator Roger Wicker for Congressional oversight and the public. Publish the 2017-2020 opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice as it has done annually since 1977. Release the data and information requested by Advancing Justice | AAJC, American Civil Liberties Union, and the Cato Institute under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). letter2moritsugu_20210618 .pdf Download PDF • 167KB On June 17, 2021, APA Justice sent a letter urging the Biden-Harris Administration to respond to the standing FOIA requests and publicize the justification for the continuation of the "China Initiative." Previous Next Letter to The White House Calling for Response to Inquiries